jgd777 wrote:Maybe the bill should include the Executive branch of government also.

The Senate bill S.2038 that was passed included the the Executive branch of government also. It has been in there about a week. A more effective disclosure mechanism would require pre-approval or pre-clearance of each trade like the SEC requires for every SEC staff member who buys or sells a security. Disclosing a month after they make the trade gives congress time and an opportunity to cover up why they made the trade. There will be no proof the trade was based on insider knowledge.

jgd777 wrote: I have never heard or read that Congress exempts anyone in the executive branch..

The new bill reads:

SEC. 6. PROMPT REPORTING OF FINANCIAL TRANS- ACTIONS.

(a) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end the following subsection:

‘‘(j) Not later than 30 days after any transaction re- quired to be reported under section 102(a)(5)(B), the fol- lowing persons, if required to file a report under any other subsection of this section subject to any waivers and exclu- sions, shall file a report of the transaction:

‘‘(1) A Member of Congress.

‘‘(2) An officer or employee of Congress re- quired to file a report under this section.

‘‘(3) The President.‘‘(4) The Vice President.‘‘(5) Each employee appointed to a position in

the executive branch, the appointment to which re- quires advice and consent of the Senate, except for—

jgd777 wrote: I have never heard or read that Congress exempts anyone in the executive branch..

The new bill reads:. . .

All of that still doesn't establish that Congress routinely, or even occasionally, exempted the executive branch from its laws. Any evidence of that?

I don't think any one was suggesting Congress routinely or even occasionally exempted the Executive branch, I was just suggesting they make sure the Executive branch was specifically included in this bill.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

jgd777 wrote: I have never heard or read that Congress exempts anyone in the executive branch..

The new bill reads:. . .

All of that still doesn't establish that Congress routinely, or even occasionally, exempted the executive branch from its laws. Any evidence of that?

I don't think any one was suggesting Congress routinely or even occasionally exempted the Executive branch, I was just suggesting they make sure the Executive branch was specifically included in this bill.

Since there is no other reason, that would be only because you dislike this particular chief executive.

The most important question not addressed in the article (and I'll probably have to read the actual bill to find out) is who will hold them accountable for violations? Is this one of those things where if the one party is in power and the offender is from the other party, they will grill them and ultimately reprimand them, but no criminal charges will be filed, and the voters will still re-elect the offender anyway because "He may be a son of a b***h, but he's our son of a b***h!"?

In other words, I'm thinking this bill is largely a move to make it SEEM like they are going to be accountable to the same laws the rest of us have to follow. But your chances of seeing a Congess critter facing jail time a la Martha Stewart are as likely as seeing a pig marry a light post. In the end, the only significant punishment they MIGHT face is if we voters refuse to re-elect them, and again, the chances of that are slim to nil assuming they don't do something either gay (republicans) or just plain weird (democrats).

Skipping out on taxes, sleeping around, taking bribes, passing legislation favoring wealthy donors, or flagrant legal violations that would land any of us in jail are all totally fine, and so too will be insider trading, even after this bill is passed. They know it, and I think deep down, we know it too.

In the first committee metting which you can find on C-span Dec first. The SEC beats the bushes and slaps them on the back of the hand. But it is the justice department who can put traders in jail. Members of Congress and legislative staffers are immune from enforcement of insider-trading laws, and are taking advantage of their positions to the public’s detriment. The SEC is helpless to prevent it because Congress refuses prompt disclosure of there trading activities and they can hide evidence behind the Speech or Debate Clause. The current laws under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and under federal statutes prohibiting mail fraud or wire fraud, already apply to members of Congress, but Congress hampers adequate enforcement by refusing prompt public disclosure. The laws apply, but are unenforceable against elected public officials. The laws cannot be enforced against members of congress because they refuse to disclose information in the time permitted for everybody else. The delayed reporting of securities transactions, defeats, obstructs, and impairs its use as timely evidence.

conativejj wrote:.. the only significant punishment they MIGHT face is if we voters refuse to re-elect them.

Constituents have shown again, and again, that they have the right to send crooks to Congress. If they get caught the people still have the right to send them back. If in an election the opponent makes a big enough deal of it, maybe it will have an effect on an incumbents reign, but I doubt it.

sleeping around..

Half the voters sleep around. Do you think that effects votes?

passing legislation favoring wealthy donors

Why should these things alone cause a person not to be reelected?

If they know that they are being watched closer than the current twenty months, they may be more cautious. But this sixty day thing they have in s.2038 leaves them wide open to suspicion, no matter what they do.